Hume's question is, "Are miracles credible?" And as they are contrary to
human experience, his answer is essentially that it must be always more
probable that a miracle is false than that it is true; since it is not
contrary to experience that witnesses are false or deceived. With him it
is, therefore, a question of the preponderance of evidence, which he
declares to be always against the miracle. This is not the place to
discuss these topics. Archbishop Whately has practically illustrated the
fallacy of Hume's reasoning, in a little book called _Historic Doubts,
relative to Napoleon Bonaparte_, in which, with Hume's logic, he has
proved, that the great emperor never lived; and Whately's successor in the
archbishopric of Dublin, Dr. Trench, has given us some thoughtful words on
the subject: "So long as we abide in the region of nature, miraculous and
improbable, miraculous and incredible may be allowed to remain convertible
terms; but once lift up the whole discussion into a higher region, once
acknowledge aught higher than nature--_a kingdom of God_, and men the
intended denizens of it--and the whole argument loses its strength and the
force of its conclusions.
Pages:
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521